Common Sense

Driving while intoxicated is a dumb idea.  Don’t do it.

OK.  With that out of the way…

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has become one of the third rails of national politics; like Patty Wetterling, they are deemed above criticism because of the loss (a few of) their founders suffered.

And yet MADD has favored, and continues to favor, quite a few measures that are completely noxious, on their way to a policy of national prohibition.  Lowering the legal driving Blood Alcohol Content to .08% is one such  measure; while any alcohol will indeed affect one’s driving, and different drivers react differently, the vast majority  of DUI arrests involve much higher BAC levels, and the majority of problems – accidents, etc – are caused by people who are blasted out of their minds.

MADD seems to be think no punishment is too severe for drunk drivers.

So one State Senator is really going against the grain with his proposals  to treat drunk drivers less onerously than the UN treats Serb war criminals:

Leading the charge in this unlikely battle is state Sen. Ron Latz DFL-St. Louis Park. As a criminal defense attorney and former assistant attorney general, Latz has worked on both sides of the DWI issue over the years.”I want to tinker with the system to make sure it works more fairly for everyone involved and improves public safety,” he explains. “And I think that will happen if both my bills get passed.”

Although all the details havent been ironed out, Latz plans to introduce a bill that will grant judges the authority to expand the use of [ignition-interlock breathlyzers] for repeat drunk drivers. Its a matter of common sense and “enlightened self-interest,” Latz says, pointing to the fact that a second DWI offense typically costs drivers their license for six months, making it harder for them to continue working or attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. “With those additional stresses, its even harder for them to become sober,” says Latz.

Observers like Steve Simon think ignition interlock, which is now commonly used in other states, is unlikely to have much opposition in Minnesota. Indeed, Mothers Against Drunk Driving launched a campaign last year touting the benefits of the devices for first-time drunk drivers.

So far so good.

But Latzs other measure, a bill to allow convicted drunk drivers to pay their $690 license reinstatement fee in installments, faces considerably more controversy. Both the DWI Task Force and the Department of Public Safety have declared their opposition to it.

But Latz says hes not trying to make it easier for drunk drivers. Instead, he says it will make the roads safer for the rest of us. He argues that many offenders, unable to muster the necessary cash, simply opt to drive without a valid license—or insurance. Statistics bear out the claim. Last year, there were a record 41,000 DWI arrests in Minnesota, yet only 29,000 people shelled out reinstatement fees.

Pragmatism?  Common sense?

MADD is going to hate it.

9 thoughts on “Common Sense

  1. No matter how many laws you have, people will find ways to get around it to drive drunk.

  2. I’ve heard that there isn’t really an issue with drunk driving in much of Europe due to the harshness of their laws.

    Of course, they’re much more geared towards not needing cars, so not having a license much less inconvenient. I tend to agree that with our current infrastructure, if we enacted anti-drunk driving laws with European severity, we’d just have that many more people driving w/o licenses and insurance.

  3. The problem with drunk driving laws in this state is that first offenses without property damage or injuries are still looked at as a minor “shame shame”. Defense attorneys are usually successful and geting their clients a little slap on the wrist sentence.

    What they should be doing is enforcing the laws on the books and if someone violates the condition of their sentence, like driving without a license, they should serve time. Period. Second and third offenses should carry mandatory time served and revocation of driving priviliges for years, not months.

  4. Doug said:

    “What they should be doing is enforcing the laws on the books and if someone violates the condition of their sentence, like driving without a license, they should serve time. Period. Second and third offenses should carry mandatory time served and revocation of driving priviliges for years, not months.”

    Hear, hear.

    Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about drunk drivers picked up by the police with DUI arrest records well into the double digits. There is no reason for anyone to accumulate anywhere near that many DUIs without doing hard time.

    At the same time, I agree with Mitch that “MADD seems to be think no punishment is too severe for drunk drivers.” I’m all for punishing offenders, but making the limits so low that you are above it by simply sniffing a beer cap is ridiculous.

  5. A friend of ours got busted (first and only time) with exactly 0.08 BAC. The state made his life miserable. Yet we continue to have guys (and gals) like Souksangouane Phengsene who are on their 13th, 14th, 15th conviction.

    I really wish they would go harder on the repeat offenders.

    LL

  6. LL said,

    The state made his life miserable.

    First, I don’t disagree that .08 is possibly too low but I wonder how it’s the states fault for making someones life miserable for something they did?

    Unless they were stopped at a checkpoint and randomly tested, the chances are they did something wrong to call the attention of a cop which led to the field test. The most common “flags” from what I understand are people leaving the bar without turning their lights on, running red lights or going the wrong way on one way roads. Those mistakes are a danger to the rest of us and they are more common with people who have had a few to drink.

    Sorry but most people don’t make these kinds of mistakes when they’re sober.

  7. Sorry, but I believe the purpose of drunk driving laws ought to be to STOP it– prevent it– and not just slap a few wrists. I favor the Swedish system: On the first offense, you lose your license AND your car, and you don’t ever drive again. Driving without a license gets you years in jail. If the penalty is high enough, then people are going to have to think about how they’re getting home before they walk into the bar, and that’s what you want to happen.

    And lest you think my proposals too harsh, please note that I did not suggest the old Albanian system, where the penalty for the first offense was summary execution.

  8. I don’t think that your proposals are to harsh J. E. I’m tired of hearing people who get caught act like the victim.

    You know the rules. You live with the consequenses..

  9. Doug is in favor of summary execution for .08 offenders! Honesty at last.
    You’re such a Nazi.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.